Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for, among other crimes, two counts of aggravated murder with four death-penalty specifications attached to each count and Defendant's sentence of death, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's argument that the Ohio Constitution limits the right to self-representation was not well taken; (2) Defendant failed to show plain error as to his argument that his standby counsel interfered with his trial preparation and strategy; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (4) there was no abuse of discretion in jury selection; (5) the court did not admit inadmissible victim-impact testimony from witnesses during the trial phase or commit other reversible evidentiary error; (6) there was no prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel; and (7) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were unavailing. View "State v. McAlpin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus, holding that Appellant did not show that the parole-revocation proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process.Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery and was later released on parole. Appellant was subsequently charged with violating the terms of his parole. After a revocation hearing, the parole board approved the hearing officer's recommendation that Appellant be ordered to serve an additional thirty-six months in prison before again becoming eligible for parole. The parole board approved the recommendation. Appellant filed an action for a writ of mandamus alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that reversible error occurred during the revocation hearing. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that the parole revocation proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process. View "State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissing Appellant's declaratory judgment and habeas claims but transferring his mandamus claim to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, holding that there was no error.Appellant, an inmate, filed an original action asserting that the revocation of his parole violated his rights to due process, free speech, and equal protection. Appellant sought a declaratory judgment of wrongful imprisonment, a writ of habeas corpus ordering his release from prison, and a writ of mandamus ordering the warden and the chair of the parole board to comply with established controlling law. The Eleventh District dismissed all but the mandamus claim then transferred the action to the Tenth District. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's potential remedy lay in mandamus. View "State ex rel. Guthrie v. Fender" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's request for injunctive and declaratory relief claiming that the application of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.271 to his conduct violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, holding that the lower courts erred.Section 2969.271 allows the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation (DRC) and Correction to administratively extend an incarcerated defendant's prison term beyond his minimum prison term or presumptive earned early-release date but not beyond his maximum prison term. Petitioner entered Alford pleas to attempted burglary and other offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence under the "Reagan Tokes Law." On appeal, Petitioner argued that the sections of the statute allowing DRC to extend his prison term beyond the presumptive minimum term was unconstitutional. The court of appeals concluded that Petitioner's constitutional challenge was not ripe for review. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a criminal defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of section 2969.271 is ripe for review on the defendant's direct appeal of his conviction and prison sentence. View "State v. Maddox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's application to reopen his appeal, holding that Appellant's application showed that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel.Appellant pleaded guilty to several sex-related offenses. On appeal, the court of appeals reasoned that, due to an incomplete record, it was compelled to presume regularity in the lower-court proceedings and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Represented by new appellate counsel, Appellant timely filed an application to reopen his direct appeal, asserting that his original appellate counsel's performance was deficient. The court of appeals denied the application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant's application to reopen his appeal showed a genuine issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel warranting a reopening of the appeal. View "State v. Leyh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court declared the congressional-district plan passed by the General Assembly invalid, holding that the General Assembly did not comply with Ohio Const. art. XIX, 1(C)(3)(a) and (b) in passing the plan and that a new congressional-district plan must be passed the complies in full with Article XIX and is not dictated by partisan considerations.At issue was 2021 Sub.S.B. No. 258, which was passed by a simple majority and signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on November 20, 2021. The bill resulted in districts in which undue political bias was at least, if not more, likely to favor Republican candidates than the 2011 reapportionment that impelled Ohio's constitutional reforms. Petitioners argued that the congressional-district plan violated Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a). The Supreme Court held that the congressional-district plan was invalid in its entirety because it unduly favored the Republican Party and disfavored the Democratic Party and because it unduly split three counties, in violation of Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(b). View "Adams v. DeWine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition against Appellees - Judge Dale A. Crawford and the Hocking County Common Pleas Court - but affirmed the denial of her motion for disqualification of attorney Randall L. Lambert, holding that the court of appeals erred in part.Appellant was found guilty of assaulting a police officer. At a sentencing hearing at which Appellant appeared without counsel, Appellant refused to sign a waiver-of-counsel form. Judge Crawford conducted the sentencing hearing, at the end of which he imposed a six-month sentence in the county jail and ordered Defendant to pay a fine, restitution, and court costs. Appellant filed a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition alleging that Judge Crawford lacked jurisdiction to hold the sentencing hearing because she had not waived her right to counsel. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint and denied the motion to disqualify Lambert. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Appellant stated a colorable claim that Judge Crawford violated her Sixth Amendment rights when he ordered her to not communicate with any lawyer and then sentenced her and that this error rendered the sentencing entry void. View "State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking County Common Pleas Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that neither a showing of exigent circumstances nor a showing of the impracticability of obtaining an arrest warrant is necessary to sustain the constitutionality of a warrantless arrest under either the Ohio Constitution or the United States Constitution.Defendant was convicted of multiple drug offenses. On appeal, Defendant challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that his arrest was unlawful because there were no exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless arrest. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a warrantless arrest based on probable cause and conducted in public is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; (2) neither exigent circumstances nor the impracticability of obtaining a warrant is required to justify a warrantless felony arrest that is supported by probable cause and that is conducted in public; and (3) the arrest in this case was constitutionally valid. View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a tax imposed solely upon a small number of billboard operators is a discriminatory tax that violates the rights to freedom of speech and a free press protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.The City of Cincinnati imposed a tax on outdoor advertising signs, but through definitions and exemptions within the city's municipal code, the tax burdens feel predominantly on two billboard operators only. The two billboard operators (Appellants) sought a declaration that the tax violated their constitutional rights to free speech and a free press and requesting an injunction against the tax's enforcement. The trial court permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the tax. The court of appeals reversed in part. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the injunction, holding that the billboard tax did not survive strict scrutiny and therefore impermissibly infringed on Appellants' rights to free speech and a free press. View "Lamar Advantage GP Co. v. City of Cincinnati" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions of murder with capital specifications, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and abuse of a corpse, holding that because the trial court accepted Defendant's guilty plea without first strictly complying with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), Defendant's guilty plea was invalid.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court failed strictly to comply with the requirements for a valid plea colloquy under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), and neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel brought the omitted constitutional rights to the court's attention at the time of the initial plea colloquy. Because this inattention was impermissible, especially in a case where a potential death sentence was at issue, the Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions and sentences and remanded the cause to the common pleas court for new proceedings. View "State v. Brinkman" on Justia Law